Gov’t agrees to destroy data seized in political interrogation at airport

The US government "has agreed to destroy all data" Homeland Security agents obtained in a border search of a Bradley Manning supporter, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced yesterday.

The settlement (PDF) arises from a November 2010 search of David House when he was reentering the US after a vacation. House is a "human rights activist" who was working with an organization raising money for the legal defense of Manning, a US soldier who admitted to leaking documents to WikiLeaks, the ACLU said.

"Department of Homeland Security agents stopped House at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and questioned him about his political activities and beliefs," the ACLU said. "They then confiscated his laptop, camera, and USB drive, which contained information identifying members and supporters of the Bradley Manning Support Network. The government copied House’s cell phone at the airport and held his laptop and other devices for 49 days. The data taken from House’s materials was then turned over to the US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), which concluded that it would not use the information."

The settlement between House and the Department of Justice contains no admission of wrongdoing. "Nothing in this Agreement or the affidavit affects the authority or discretion of the Defendants to engage in any screening, inspection, search, detention, or seizure on any basis whatsoever, and Mr. House may continue to be subject to lawful searches and inspections," the settlement states.

The document thus imposes no limitations on future searches. But the ACLU counts it as a victory for Fourth Amendment rights. “The government’s sweeping claim that it can search through our electronics at the border for any reason or no reason at all is flatly contradicted by the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures,” ACLU Staff Attorney Catherine Crump said in the organization's announcement. "The tremendous amount of personal and business information that we can now easily carry around with us means that respecting the Fourth Amendment in all places—including the border—is more important than ever.”

Figures cited by the ACLU when it began aiding House indicate that in 2009, border searches resulted in 2,204 searches of digital media, 105 people being detained without any stated grounds for reasonable suspicion, and the seizures of 115 devices.

Besides destroying all copies of data obtained from House's devices, "[t]he government will also hand over numerous documents, including reports describing Army CID’s inspection of House’s data as well as the DHS 'Lookout' telling agents to stop House as he entered the country," the ACLU said. "The government further agreed to release reports on DHS agents’ questioning of House, which included inquiries about whether he knew anything about Manning giving classified information to WikiLeaks."

House is also a computer vision researcher and former information economics systems developer at MIT. House called the settlement "a victory through vital action not only for the citizens put at risk, but also for anyone who believes that Americans should be free to support political causes without fearing retaliation from Washington.”

A victory it may be, but a hollow one it is, with no admission of wrongdoing its simply a statement of the government saying yeah we got caught but that wont stop us from doing it again in the future.

Maybe not. But it also sets precedent for such future cases. The more people fight this, and win, the more the government will be forced to change their policies.

EDIT: one thing that does come to mind however. If they agreed to release these documents showing they intentionally targeted him for his political beliefs. Is he restricted from publishing those documents to the public? I would be interested in seeing them. To see the actual wording used in them. Plus it could further help illustrate their (not)guilt.

How is this any kind of win? The government can't go back in time and reverse their decision. They already have the data. That they said they won't use it is bullshit. They already used it. You can't un-know something. There was probably just nothing of value in it to their case.

> it also sets precedent for such future cases. The more people fight this, and win, the more the government will be forced to change their policies.

Isn't the whole point of the Constitution that it's non-negotiable - i.e. no legal test and precedent is required? If not, what exactly is its function? Guidelines to be ignored at will? That's certainly what it has become.

Is it just me or do our government officials sound like immature children lacking the concept of taking responsibility/following rules?

Did you steal that candy bar?No...Did you hit your sister?No...Did you pull the cat's tail?No...Are you lying?No! Well... The candy bar fell into my pocket, sister called me a name so it was her fault, and kitty was trying to run away.

> it also sets precedent for such future cases. The more people fight this, and win, the more the government will be forced to change their policies.

Isn't the whole point of the Constitution that it's non-negotiable - i.e. no legal test and precedent is required? If not, what exactly is its function? Guidelines to be ignored at will? That's certainly what it has become.

But its also open to interpretation. As much yours as the governments. With today's computers, smart phones, electronics, etc. This interpretation becomes even more obscured. Cases like this help clarify that interpretation. IMHO anyway.

To be fair, if the US people actually wanted the Constitution to be respected by the executive branch of government, they would have elected McCain or Romney.

ROFL, you're hilarious. Considering the gigantic shit the previous admin took on the Constitution (Free Speech Zones anyone?), and McCain's and Romney's insistence that Bush's legacy would be continued, it would have been more of the same, if not worse.

To be fair, if the US people actually wanted the Constitution to be respected by the executive branch of government, they would have elected McCain or Romney.

I could see that being said of Ron Paul, but we saw McCain and Romney speak in favor of the patriot act. I.e. trashing the constitution in the same way as this article presents. So no. I disagree, the right and the left both tend to do a handy job at trashing the constitution when it proves an inconvenience to their agenda.

To be fair, if the US people actually wanted the Constitution to be respected by the executive branch of government, they would have elected McCain or Romney.

I certainly wouldn't go that far, those two have not done or said anything to make me believe they'd be any better, they'd just take different approaches or conduct their abuse down different roads.

That being said, Obama sure seems to be hellbent on going down as leading one of the most corrupt and abusive administrations in recent memory. The protestations that he's finding out about this stuff from the media are either obvious lies or a demonstration of complete incompetence and lack of leadership. You can pick whichever disappoints you less, I guess.

Lesson to learn from this - it doesn't matter if it's a D or an R after the name. Anyone still clinging to the notion that one party has a monopoly on benevolence, respect of the Constitution, corruption, nepotism, general douchebaggery, etc. is hopefully waking up after the past few weeks.

To be fair, if the US people actually wanted the Constitution to be respected by the executive branch of government, they would have elected McCain or Romney.

Going by recent trends of US presidents, I don't think McCain/Romney would have faired any better on this whole "respect the constitution" shtick. Obama has simply been more of the same out of the last few presidents on the block.

Some times doing good, some times bad, mostly average. Insert political bias here on how that is interpreted, etc.

To be fair, if the US people actually wanted the Constitution to be respected by the executive branch of government, they would have elected McCain or Romney.

Going by recent trends of US presidents, I don't think McCain/Romney would have faired any better on this whole "respect the constitution" shtick. Obama has simply been more of the same out of the last few presidents on the block.

Some times doing good, some times bad, mostly average. Insert political bias here on how that is interpreted, etc.

I do wonder if a R president would be held more accountable in the media that our current one seems to be.

> it also sets precedent for such future cases. The more people fight this, and win, the more the government will be forced to change their policies.

Isn't the whole point of the Constitution that it's non-negotiable - i.e. no legal test and precedent is required? If not, what exactly is its function? Guidelines to be ignored at will? That's certainly what it has become.

But its also open to interpretation. As much yours as the governments. With today's computers, smart phones, electronics, etc. This interpretation becomes even more obscured. Cases like this help clarify that interpretation. IMHO anyway.

Just like any law, you should look to the interpretation of those who passed the law. So yes, there is a right way to "interpret" the constitution.

Apparently I need an example:

Torturehttp://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/ ... text=auilrTorture was a fairly straightforward concept. However, because the Government wanted to torture people, it just unilaterally redefined the types of torture it wanted to use as "ill treatment" and carried on violating the original intent of the international law on torture. That's why we had this huge water-boarding debate a few years ago. "Is water-boarding torture?"

If you asked any of the parties involved in ratifying the international law on torture whether water-boarding was torture or not they would have likely unanimously said, "Yes, it is torture!".

To be fair, if the US people actually wanted the Constitution to be respected by the executive branch of government, they would have elected McCain or Romney.

Going by recent trends of US presidents, I don't think McCain/Romney would have faired any better on this whole "respect the constitution" shtick. Obama has simply been more of the same out of the last few presidents on the block.

Some times doing good, some times bad, mostly average. Insert political bias here on how that is interpreted, etc.

I do wonder if a R president would be held more accountable in the media that our current one seems to be.

How much more accountable do you want? I stopped watching the news because all they do is screech about these scandals.

> it also sets precedent for such future cases. The more people fight this, and win, the more the government will be forced to change their policies.

Isn't the whole point of the Constitution that it's non-negotiable - i.e. no legal test and precedent is required? If not, what exactly is its function? Guidelines to be ignored at will? That's certainly what it has become.

But its also open to interpretation. As much yours as the governments. With today's computers, smart phones, electronics, etc. This interpretation becomes even more obscured. Cases like this help clarify that interpretation. IMHO anyway.

Just like any law, you should look to the interpretation of those who passed the law. So yes, there is a right way to "interpret" the constitution.

Of course. Not saying there isn't. But we've seen plenty of articles where the government interprets to fit a specific circumstance, citing that the constitutional article in question doesn't cover such and such because of such and such and thus shouldn't apply. This interpretation often is completely opposite of yours or mine. This tends to cast legal doubt on any specific interpretation, at least until it's clarified one way or another. At least, as in this case, the correct interpretation is solidified by court precedent. So next time, the government can't try and use that same (incorrect) interpretation.

It's sad it has to be done that way, but again, with today's electronics and new methods of media and communication, some of these constitutional articles are going to come under scrutiny as they apply to certain circumstances.

Lesson to learn from this - it doesn't matter if it's a D or an R after the name. Anyone still clinging to the notion that one party has a monopoly on benevolence, respect of the Constitution, corruption, nepotism, general douchebaggery, etc. is hopefully waking up after the past few weeks.

This +1. Though I find the R's the lesser of two evils in a lot of cases, they are still evil. When the Bush administration did these type of things it was wrong, when the Obama administraton does these type of things they are wrong. And what happened here was not only wrong, but illegal.

And it is bloody well time for all of us to stand up and say enough is enough.

Make your own 4th Amendment. Never transport data. Transport a one time pad which itself is encrypted (in case someone makes a copy of it). Download your vm at your destination. Shred your vm and one time pad before you leave.

Is it just me or do our government officials sound like immature children lacking the concept of taking responsibility/following rules?

Did you steal that candy bar?No...Did you hit your sister?No...Did you pull the cat's tail?No...Are you lying?No! Well... The candy bar fell into my pocket, sister called me a name so it was her fault, and kitty was trying to run away.

You forgot to add that no one seems to ever know anything about it. They always find out about it the same way we do. In the news.

I do wonder if a R president would be held more accountable in the media that our current one seems to be.

You're funny. You mean like how the Bush administration (Cheney in particular) was held accountable for lying to the public to start a war in Iraq? Or what about use of waterboarding that provided no verifiable useful information from the "terrorists"? Or what about shooting someone in the goddamned face? I'm sorry, but if that shit doesn't get held to accountability, then there's nothing that anyone else is going to do that will. Executive accountability will never be a thing again. Edit: I blame the Nixon administration (Ford, perhaps) for starting the no-accountability bit. Once Nixon got the full pardon to escape war-crimes and prosecution for Watergate, that marked the start of the death of accountability and every president since has dealt further fatal wounds to it.

That being said, Obama sure seems to be hellbent on going down as leading one of the most corrupt and abusive administrations in recent memory. The protestations that he's finding out about this stuff from the media are either obvious lies or a demonstration of complete incompetence and lack of leadership. You can pick whichever disappoints you less, I guess.

It's called plausible deniability. It was even shown in "Independence Day" in a sci-fi-ey form. There's reasons not to tell presidents stuff that would damage their administration. So yeah, I fully believe that Obama found out the same time and same way as the rest of us. It'd all be to finding out who in his cabinet knew and hold that person accountable. But then see my previous response on that.

How is this any kind of win? The government can't go back in time and reverse their decision. They already have the data. That they said they won't use it is bullshit. They already used it. You can't un-know something. There was probably just nothing of value in it to their case.

And you have no way to prove that they did or did not destroy all copies of the data. "Just trust us."

> it also sets precedent for such future cases. The more people fight this, and win, the more the government will be forced to change their policies.

Isn't the whole point of the Constitution that it's non-negotiable - i.e. no legal test and precedent is required? If not, what exactly is its function? Guidelines to be ignored at will? That's certainly what it has become.

Unfortunately dozens of administrations - since 1789, in fact - have proven that they'll do what they damn well please until the courts order them to follow the Constitution. So a settlement in this case means there is (still) no court order that DHS not search people without a warrant, leaving DHS free to do just that.

I do wonder if a R president would be held more accountable in the media that our current one seems to be.

You're funny. You mean like how the Bush administration (Cheney in particular) was held accountable for lying to the public to start a war in Iraq? Or what about use of waterboarding that provided no verifiable useful information from the "terrorists"? Or what about shooting someone in the goddamned face? I'm sorry, but if that shit doesn't get held to accountability, then there's nothing that anyone else is going to do that will. Executive accountability will never be a thing again. Edit: I blame the Nixon administration (Ford, perhaps) for starting the no-accountability bit. Once Nixon got the full pardon to escape war-crimes and prosecution for Watergate, that marked the start of the death of accountability and every president since has dealt further fatal wounds to it.

That being said, Obama sure seems to be hellbent on going down as leading one of the most corrupt and abusive administrations in recent memory. The protestations that he's finding out about this stuff from the media are either obvious lies or a demonstration of complete incompetence and lack of leadership. You can pick whichever disappoints you less, I guess.

It's called plausible deniability. It was even shown in "Independence Day" in a sci-fi-ey form. There's reasons not to tell presidents stuff that would damage their administration. So yeah, I fully believe that Obama found out the same time and same way as the rest of us. It'd all be to finding out who in his cabinet knew and hold that person accountable. But then see my previous response on that.

You're funny. People who appoint others to do their dirty work quietly aren't responsible? You are the only one who thinks if I tell someone to "make my problem go away" and later I read in the news my problem got shot in the face that I am somehow blameless. You are the only person who thinks I wouldn't be responsible.

I do wonder if a R president would be held more accountable in the media that our current one seems to be.

You're funny. You mean like how the Bush administration (Cheney in particular) was held accountable for lying to the public to start a war in Iraq? Or what about use of waterboarding that provided no verifiable useful information from the "terrorists"? Or what about shooting someone in the goddamned face? I'm sorry, but if that shit doesn't get held to accountability, then there's nothing that anyone else is going to do that will. Executive accountability will never be a thing again. Edit: I blame the Nixon administration (Ford, perhaps) for starting the no-accountability bit. Once Nixon got the full pardon to escape war-crimes and prosecution for Watergate, that marked the start of the death of accountability and every president since has dealt further fatal wounds to it.

However the media rode those things into the ground. Can you imagine them letting Bush answer "I just found out on the news"?

What about Fast & Furious? It seemed like all of the news coverage was about what assholes the republicans were for making a big deal about it, and that there was nothing to hide, despite the use of executive privilege to protect information about a program that possibly the White House had no knowledge or over site of.

That being said, Obama sure seems to be hellbent on going down as leading one of the most corrupt and abusive administrations in recent memory. The protestations that he's finding out about this stuff from the media are either obvious lies or a demonstration of complete incompetence and lack of leadership. You can pick whichever disappoints you less, I guess.

It's called plausible deniability. It was even shown in "Independence Day" in a sci-fi-ey form. There's reasons not to tell presidents stuff that would damage their administration. So yeah, I fully believe that Obama found out the same time and same way as the rest of us. It'd all be to finding out who in his cabinet knew and hold that person accountable. But then see my previous response on that.

Oh I definitely get the plausible deniability reasoning. I file that under "extreme incompetence". The oath the President takes is to uphold and protect the Constitution...you don't get a free pass by giving your underlings a free hand to violate that oath as long as you aren't told about it, simply because it's been shown to work in terms of getting you off the hook (AFAIC).

"Nothing in this Agreement or the affidavit affects the authority or discretion of the Defendants to engage in any screening, inspection, search, detention, or seizure on any basis whatsoever, and Mr. House may continue to be subject to lawful searches and inspections..."

Strange definition of win: Since there was no admission of wrong doing, what they did could be considered legal so they can do it again if they want, even to Mr. House.

Pity this wasn't taken to a verdict instead of a settlement which pretty much allows them to just make it go away.

> it also sets precedent for such future cases. The more people fight this, and win, the more the government will be forced to change their policies.

Isn't the whole point of the Constitution that it's non-negotiable - i.e. no legal test and precedent is required? If not, what exactly is its function? Guidelines to be ignored at will? That's certainly what it has become.

But its also open to interpretation. As much yours as the governments. With today's computers, smart phones, electronics, etc. This interpretation becomes even more obscured. Cases like this help clarify that interpretation. IMHO anyway.

It sets no precedent. Unless I am misreading this, there was no verdict. It was a settlement. The two parties agreed to terms and the court case goes away. Hence, nothing for future court cases to interpret.

You're funny. You mean like how the Bush administration (Cheney in particular) was held accountable for lying to the public to start a war in Iraq? Or what about use of waterboarding that provided no verifiable useful information from the "terrorists"?

The decision not to prosecute any of the politicians who ordered torture, the mid-level bureaucrats and military officers who oversaw torture, or the low level thugs who carried out torture was Obama's.

He was the one spouting the "look forward not back" bullshiat.

However, he did decide to send to prison the whistleblower who exposed Bush's illegal torture to the light of day, putting an end to the practice.

You're funny. You mean like how the Bush administration (Cheney in particular) was held accountable for lying to the public to start a war in Iraq? Or what about use of waterboarding that provided no verifiable useful information from the "terrorists"?

The decision not to prosecute any of the politicians who ordered torture, the mid-level bureaucrats and military officers who oversaw torture, or the low level thugs who carried out torture was Obama's.

He was the one spouting the "look forward not back" bullshiat.

However, he did decide to send to prison the whistleblower who exposed Bush's illegal torture to the light of day, putting an end to the practice.

Lesson to learn from this - it doesn't matter if it's a D or an R after the name. Anyone still clinging to the notion that one party has a monopoly on benevolence, respect of the Constitution, corruption, nepotism, general douchebaggery, etc. is hopefully waking up after the past few weeks.

This +1. Though I find the R's the lesser of two evils in a lot of cases, they are still evil. When the Bush administration did these type of things it was wrong, when the Obama administraton does these type of things they are wrong. And what happened here was not only wrong, but illegal.

And it is bloody well time for all of us to stand up and say enough is enough.

I mostly agree, except I generally find the R's to be the greater of two evils.Both parties have a pretty bad record on respecting the Constitution, and both have failed to hold the banks accountable for their role in the financial crisis, but the R's are more likely to pander to the anti-science religious fanatics who want to push their religious views into everything, and push creationism in schools, etc.

That being said, Obama sure seems to be hellbent on going down as leading one of the most corrupt and abusive administrations in recent memory. The protestations that he's finding out about this stuff from the media are either obvious lies or a demonstration of complete incompetence and lack of leadership. You can pick whichever disappoints you less, I guess.

It's called plausible deniability. It was even shown in "Independence Day" in a sci-fi-ey form. There's reasons not to tell presidents stuff that would damage their administration. So yeah, I fully believe that Obama found out the same time and same way as the rest of us. It'd all be to finding out who in his cabinet knew and hold that person accountable. But then see my previous response on that.

Oh I definitely get the plausible deniability reasoning. I file that under "extreme incompetence". The oath the President takes is to uphold and protect the Constitution...you don't get a free pass by giving your underlings a free hand to violate that oath as long as you aren't told about it, simply because it's been shown to work in terms of getting you off the hook (AFAIC).

The whole thing is just disappointing.

If there was to be a shred of credibility to that claim, the first act he should take upon finding out about (and confirming) these abuses is to fire those who were responsible, and then let them get charged criminally. If I was in charge of a large organization that was serious about some issue, and my underlings undermined me, you can bet some heads would roll.

The fact that none have proves that it's just an excuse, nothing more.